Fiscal Cliff Deal

While a deal has been reached in the fiscal cliff saga, the result is a disappointment. There was no grand bargain, which was unfortunate, though grand bargains are likely going to be hard to come by in the near future.  The deal basically kicks the can down the road, meaning congress will have to deal with the situation later, or kick the can further away.  Remember, the fiscal cliff was a creation of congress that delayed tough decisions.  This strategy has been the new norm for any debt related debates, leading to a stagnant reform effort.

President Obama's Address in Connecticut

In the midst of a horrific tragedy, we feel it is important to concentrate on the events that have happened in Connecticut.  Here are the President"s remarks:

The Future of Gun Control

Many will call the events in Connecticut a tragic accident, or a horrible tragedy, but those descriptions are beating around the bush.  This was a senseless massacre of innocent life.  What makes it even worse is the fact that this is the 16^th such mass shooting event in the United States this year.  Those 16 shootings have left 84 people dead.  The question is, how many more people must be brutally murdered before legislators do anything?

Shooting killed 26 people in Connecticut

The time has come for some sanity on gun control.  The facts show that more guns correlate with more homicides (Harvard School of Public Health), just as the fact that states that have tighter gun laws have fewer gun related deaths (Richard Florida).   We as a country need to stop lying to ourselves that guns make us safer and finally get some results in gun control to ensure the safety of our population and ensure that such terrible killings will not happen again.

 

Many would argue that the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms.  However, the very same document we uphold to be the law of the land and the reason why gun control should not be enacted once contained provisions upholding the enslavement of human beings, counting African Americans as three-fifths of a person, didn't allow women to vote, and didn't allow direct election of officials even after a democratic revolution. 

Moreover, when the founding fathers wrote that United States citizens had a right to bear arms, they did not write a provision in the Bill of Rights that upheld the right to carry concealed weapons, have firearms with hundreds of rounds of ammunition, wear body armor, and shoot up a crowded elementary school.  The wide availability to guns that people now have in this country creates an environment that violates the basic tenant that our government is supposed to enforce: keep our citizens safe.

We urge  everyone to write to their representative and Senator to spur action on this particular issue.  We cannot afford to wait for the next tragedy for us to be influenced into action. 

Simple Graphic Explaining Fiscal Cliff

USA Today put together an amazing graphic explaining the fiscal cliff.  we encourage any curious minds to take a look:

An Open Letter to Speaker John Boehner

Speaker Boehner, 

As our nation rests on the perilous brink of insolvency, the Government of the United States needs to raise taxes, somehow, on individuals and companies, until the economy has achieved a strong growth rate for two consecutive years. 

The governmental debt of this great nation has ballooned to around 70% of our Gross Domestic Product, far above what is considered healthy for the economy.  We need a way to lower it.  Doing so would enable us to ensure the financial flexibility typical to a period of strong growth.  Keynesian Deficit spending is an option, but with an economy slowly rebounding, with unemployment now at 7.7%, we feel that it is time to address the debt problem.

In order to do this effectively and responsibly, we must employ a balanced approach.  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the well-regarded nonpartisan organization that provides economic data to congress, only raising taxes or only cutting spending could have drastic effects on the nation’s growth, crippling the economy here in the United States and sending ripple effects across the world. While cutting spending and increasing taxes would have some short term detrimental effects, it pales in comparison to the alternative proposals.

Therefore, there is a need for increased revenue.  The question remains: how do we get it?  Here, we must also look for a balanced approach.  The government, when seeking out ways to increase the amount of dollars going into the treasury, must look for ways to spread the load of tax increases, making sure those earning very little will not suffer any undue burden.

There are two ways to increase revenue-we can either raise the base rate that people pay or we can eliminate tax deductions.  A deduction is money that the government gives back to taxpayers for reasons varying from making a charitable donation to owning a private jet.  Now obviously, some deductions are more important than others.  By capping deductions, yet keeping the base rate the same, we can obtain revenue for the government.  In addition, by changing the tax code by including revenue from stocks and dividends in this new tax, which are now taxed lightly, for higher income earners will generate much needed revenue for the government and will cut into the debt. 

These tax increases, though levied on many Americans, would not affect all people equally.  Moreover, since richer people tend to have more deductions and more income from the stock market, the tax increase would be progressive.  This ensures equity and limits any economic damage that might occur.  The money gained can be used for targeted stimulus, or as we have been saying, to pay down the debt, ensuring a stable future for the United States economy.  

However, only capping deductions will not get us all the revenue we need.  In order for this plan to be truly balanced, we also need the people who can afford it the most to pay slightly higher rates on income taxes.  How much to change these is up in the air, but please ensure that tax increases are spread fairly on consumers and do not unduly burden the poor and the middle class. 

We should maintain there tax increases until necessary growth has occurred sustain a tax decrease.  When we have strong growth, the base will be large enough to finance a cut in taxes.  We need to get this debt problem under control.  Spending cuts, as well as tax increases, must be part of the plan to get this done.

Please communicate with the rest of your caucus that legitimate tax increases must be on the table.  Deductions, as well as base rate increases may be necessary to cut the debt.  Reforming the tax code, making it simpler and fairer can also help us in this problem.  You can push the President on spending cuts all you want, but a stronger plan, on that includes revenue, is necessary to ensure our nation's economic stability for the future.

The Auxilia Party

Adam Smith's Maxims of Taxation

In his book, The Wealth of Nations, economist Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, outlined four general principles, or maxims, that he thought ought to govern how governments levy, collect, and organize taxation in their countries.  Each of these maxims is extremely applicable today, and if we can learn about and start following these principles, we have found a perfect place to start for tax reform in the United States.

The first of Adam Smith's maxims is equity.  In Smith's view, since wealthy citizens benefit the most from government and are able to pay for it, the should shoulder a larger burden than others. "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than that proportion."  Equity, in other words, means that the wealthier a person is, the more of their income they will pay in taxes.

The second maxim is certainty.  In Adam Smith's opinion, the taxes that a person owes should be certain and not arbitrary.  The amount to be paid, when it should be paid, and the manner the tax should be paid in must all be clear.  Without this, government officials could be tempted to abuse the tax system for their own personal gain.

Convenience is Adam Smith's third maxim.  Taxpayers, he thought, should be relatively easy to figure out and the tax code must not be overly complicated.  The process of paying taxes should be easy for citizens, as well as straightforward and predictable.

Adam Smith's fourth and final maxim is efficiency.  Efficiency means that the cost of the whole tax collection system needs to be kept to a minimum, otherwise there is little point of collecting a tax that requires so many resources to collect.  Taxation, Smith felt, should produce maximum gain for a government, while at the same time incurring minimal cost for the tax payers.

Clearly, the US government is not following these principles.  More often now, people are turning to professional help to complete their tax returns, in part because they are so inconvenient to do.

Below is a graphic that Neil Patel  from Quicksprout has put together, illustrating some problems with the tax code.

As you can see, the US government has a lot of work to do in tax reform.  If we can fix some of the problems with complexity and inefficiency, we can increase revenue without having to increase rates.  It's just one way we can help make this country more sustainable for the future.

Simpson Bowles on Taxes

Any plan that congress agrees on to avert the fiscal cliff must include some sort of tax reform.  There is little way around it.  The politicians tend to skirt the issue, we need to have a grown up conversation about how to improve our tax code.  We can make it simpler, and we can make it fairer.  There won't be any magical plans that promote 10% GDP growth and eliminate all debt by 2015.   It's just not going to happen.  What can happen though, is small steps in the right direction.  The Simpson-Bowles plan makes such a step, pushing the dialogue forward on meaningful tax reform.

Below is a graphic illustrating the Simpson Bowles plan on taxes.

While the above chart might seem complicated, we've set out to describe, in simpler terms, the major elements of the Simpson-Bowles tax proposal.

First off, the Simpson-Bowles plan eliminates the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.  This is done before changes are made to the tax code.  The elimination of these breaks are built into its baseline.

Additionally, there are a lot of tax increases in the Simpson-Bowles plan.  This is necessary to make any large scale dent in the debt.  As a balanced approach, the revenue increases and spending cuts are roughly equal.  The Simpson-Bowles plan also taxes dividends and capital gains as normal income.  This basically results in a huge tax increase for the rich, who hold more of their wealth in stocks and would be taxed more in capital gains and dividends.  Therefore, the Simpson-Bowles plan is able to lower the actual rate while still maintaining equity in taxation.  The Simpson-Bowles plan also significantly cuts deductions for taxes, which allows it to lower some overall rates while still getting revenue increases.  The difference is that people would be paying a higher percentage of their income, because they have less deductions from the baseline rate.

The Simpson-Bowles also recommends raising the gas tax by 15 cents.  While this would undoubtedly hurt some Americans who need gas for travel, work, etc, It could be a much needed revenue booster and a way to get on the right track for green energy.  Americans consume a lot of gasoline, so having a gas tax increase could dramatically increase the revenue into the government's coffers.

We'll have more on tax reform tomorrow.

Simpson Bowles: Defense Cuts and Why We Need Them

The Simpson-Bowles plan, which we mentioned in yesterday's post, calls for deep cuts in defense spending, and for good reason.  Defense spending makes up a significant portion of the nation's overall budget, and that share is even larger when we only look at discretionary spending.  This makes the Department of Defense a prime candidate for budget cuts.

Military spending has also ballooned in recent years because of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Both these conflicts have increased the amount the United States spends on the military and each has had a significant effect of the debt of the nation.  In the figure below, we can see the gradual increase in spending after September 11th, until Obama's military budget freeze.

Spending this much money just doesn't seem like a valid use of resources.  The US military must learn to be more efficient with how it uses its money.  Other countries all around the world, though they do not have the same military capabilities and presence of the United States, spend far less than us on defense.  The United States is far and away the largest military spender in the world.  It's time it took a step back and found more efficient ways to do things.

While military spending certainly helps US businesses grow and make profits, the amount the military spends is showing up less and less in actual changes to our GDP.  Therefore, the value in trimming debt is going to be a far greater positive than the effect of any growth maintaining the spending levels might cause.  

We can afford to make these defense cuts, and we will not be weaker as a nation because of them.  While we might deploy less soldiers and fighter jets around the world, we can still be the most powerful military in the world.  We spend so much, that cutting a bit probably won't make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. Also, a ballooning federal debt is also a national security risk, and endangers to solvency of our entire nation.  It is in our country's best interests to find ways to reduce debt, and cutting unnecessary defense spending is one way to do that.  As a part of a balanced approach, reforming the Pentagon budget is necessary in any negotiations regarding the fiscal cliff.

The Fiscal Cliff: Part 3-Simpson Bowles

The Simpson-Bowles Plan is a plan for improving our nation's fiscal situation produced by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, and named after the commission's co-chairs, former Republican U.S. Senator from Wyoming Alan Simpson and former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, a Democrat.  This commission was created by president Obama in 2010 to identify policies that could be used to solve our budgetary crises.

The Simpson-Bowles Plan goes beyond what many other ideas to reduce deficits entail.  Both Simpson and Bowles bravely recognize the need for increased revenue and reduced spending to get the nation back on the track of financial solvency.  If we want to be serious about reducing our debt, there will be no easy decisions.  Money must come from all places possible, and this includes reforms to the tax code, social security, and the defense budget.

As you can see in the figure above, the Simpson-Bowles proposal (Co-Chair Proposal) goes far beyond what any major party has come up with.  What the plan might lack in depth in any one any it makes up for it in its balanced approach to cutting debt.  Paul Ryan's plan includes more cuts to domestic discretionary spending, but leaves defense spending alone, for the most part.  The Simpson-Bowles approach also increases revenue, partly by eliminating loopholes, partly by raising taxes.  They understand that we cannot have a balanced approach without an increase in revenue.  Until now, we have never fought a war without an accompanying tax increase to pay for it.  Now, with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have had two.  This simply is not sustainable.

We hope that Senators and Congressman, as well as the President, after initially spurning this plan, take a second look at it in the midst of fiscal cliff negotiations.  We need real, concrete plans to cut debt if we are to ensure the financial stability of this nation for years to come.  In coming posts, we will elaborate on details of the plan, and explain why its ideas are important.

The Supreme Court: DOMA and Proposition 8

The Supreme Court recently announced that they would review the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that established marriage as between one man and one woman.  The Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996 by large majorities in both houses of Congress, defined for federal purposes marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman.  Under this act, no state is required to recognize any same-sex union performed in another state.

These two cases present a large opportunity for the Supreme Court to change the dynamic of LGBT equality around the country.  Any decision the Supreme Court makes will likely have effects that reach far into the future.

Over recent years, the tide has turned regarding the public opinion on same-sex marriage.  More and more people, polls have found, believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.  

The fact that the Supreme Court has even considered these cases means we have come a long way since initial days of extreme injustice.

Here is a PBS NewsHour report on the big news:

It will certainly be interesting to see how the conservative justices, namely Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts, react to this case.